Total Pageviews

Friday, April 24, 2009

we would particularly like to learn how these five specific questions should be answered:#1 Can we distinguish circumstances when ISPs should be forced to act to deal with some type of bad traffic? When should we insist that ISPs should not be forced into dealing with a problem, and that the solution must be found elsewhere?#2 Should the Government be intervening over behavioural advertising services, either to encourage or discourage their deployment; or is this entirely a matter for individual users, ISPs and websites?#3 Is there a need for new initiatives to deal with online privacy, and if so, what should be done?#4 Is the current global approach to dealing with child sexual abuse images working effectively? If not, then how should it be improved?#5 Who should be paying for the transmission of Internet traffic? Would it be appropriate to enshrine any of the various notions of Network Neutrality in statute?

Monica Horten directs to an interview with a Danish MEP who has responded to this and T-Mobile's contempt for Skype by suggesting the incorporation of the Four Freedoms in the Second Reading. Good luck!

Monday, April 06, 2009

By George, the interim FCC Chair has repeated the radical idea that Michael Powell's Four Internet Freedoms lacked an important fifth - enforcing the four against ISPs who do a Comcast! But he wants new Chair Genachowski to implement the idea. ""These are evolving technologies and sometimes the line between reasonable network management and outright discrimination can be less than crystal clear But that’s why we need a for-sure enforcement process, to sift through complaints, to make the judgment calls, and, over time, to compile some case law and precedent so things become clearer."

Wednesday, April 01, 2009

As ever, its really up to the NRAs to decide how much they want to introduce transparency and police ISP information, with references put in on co- and self-regulation, but this is apparently what the law will look like (red represents amendments by IMCO Committee):

Article 20.1

1. Member States shall ensure that, when subscribing to services providing connection

to a public communications network and/or publicly available electronic

communications services, consumers, and other end-users so requesting, have a right

to a contract with an undertaking or undertakings providing such connection and/or

services. The contract shall specify in a clear, comprehensive and easily accessible

form at least:

(b)

- information on any other conditions limiting access to and/or use of services

and applications, where such conditions are allowed under national law in

accordance with Community law,

- the minimum service quality levels offered, namely the time for the initial

connection and, where appropriate, other quality of service parameters, as

defined by the national regulatory authorities,

- information on any procedures put in place by the provider in order to

measure and shape traffic so as to avoid filling or overfilling a network link,

and on how these may impact on service quality,

Member States may also require that the contract include any information which may

be provided by the relevant public authorities for this purpose on the use of electronic

communications networks and services to engage in unlawful activities or to

disseminate harmful content, and on the means of protection against risks to personal

security, privacy and personal data, referred to in Article 21(4)(a) and relevant to the

service provided.

CA5

Article 21.3

3. Member States shall ensure that national regulatory authorities are able to oblige